Mureybat is the only site known in Syria where occupation continued without
interruption after the Mesolithic. The site is situated on the left bank of the
Euphrates near a present-day ford and ferry crossing. It lies on a consolidated
gravel terrace which is itself superimposed on an outcrop of soft limestone. The
site faces west across the Euphrates flood-plain which is about 2.5 kilometres wide at
this point. The river flows at its foot while behind to the east the land
gradually rises to the Jazirah Plateau. The site today forms an elongated oval
platform along the bank of the river and rises about 4 metres above the level of the
fields behind. The core of the site is a small circular mound 6 metres high which
lies on top of this platform. The total area of the site is a little over 3 hectares
but this was never fully occupied in any phase of the settlement's existence.
The earlier phases of settlement were concentrated in the area of the central
mound which extends over 4300 square metres.

Mureybat was first excavated by M. van Loon who in 1964 and 1965 dug trenches in
the western slope of the central mound and also made several soundings elsewhere
on the platform. The work was continued by J. Cauvin from 1971 to 1974. He
excavated several more trenches a little to the south of van Loon's area and one
other sounding on the east slope of the central mound. These excavations have
shown that the focus of occupation altered during the life of the settlement but
as most of van Loon's and Cauvin's trenches were placed quite close together we
do not have a clear idea of the extent of each phase of occupation. The full
sequence or occupation on the site has, however, now been determined. The
earliest phase of settlement was found by Cauvin and designated phase I.
This has since been subdivided into a primary phase of Mesolithic
occupation, phase IA, and a post-Mesolithic deposit, phase IB. Phase IA appears
to have been confined to a small part of the western slope of the central mound,
covering no more than 100 or 200 square metres, and the settlement was apparently not
much larger in phase IB. The phase II settlement was more extensive, covering
much if not all of the central mound; this phase is equivalent to strata I to IX
in van Loon's excavation. Phase III, van Loon's strata X
to XVII, likewise extended over much of the central mound. The deposits of
phases IB to III are the remains of the early post-Mesolithic settlement with
which the excavations at Mureybat have been principally concerned. The site
continued to be occupied throughout the earlier Neolithic, apparently, and
material like the aceramic Neolithic at Abu Hureyra and Bouqras levels I and II
was found in both campaigns of excavations; the C-14 dates for these levels at
Bouqras indicate that this phase, designated phase IV by Cauvin, dates from the
7th millennium BC.

The earliest buildings at Mureybat were found in phase IB. These were
circular structures with walls made of vertical wooden posts set
close together. The lower 50 centimetres of the walls were made
weatherproof on the inside with a clay facing 10 centimetres thick which were the only
parts of the structures that survived. Several floor surfaces were also found
and hearths with horseshoe-shaped clay surrounds. Fire-pits or roasting pits
filled with burned pebbles, ash and charcoal were associated with the floors and
were a feature of each phase of occupation at Mureybat from phase IA to phase III.

The chipped stone assemblage from this phase had much in common with
phase IA. Now and throughout the sequence most tools were made on small blades and
flakes struck from prismatic cores. Microliths comprised 7 to 20% of the
retouched tools in these levels. Many of these were lunates with
a few triangles and trapezes. Microborers were also very common while a few
backed bladelets made up the rest of the microlithic component. Among the
larger tools were borers and drills with a few end-scrapers, burins, denticulates
and occasional sickle-blades. There were two new tool types in the assemblage,
a concave-based arrowhead with side notches resembling a Khiamian point and a heavy
flaked adze. The latter was probably used for shaping timber and is a
characteristic tool at Mureybat in subsequent phases. The remaining artifacts
consisted of quite abundant bone points and a few cylindrical bone beads.

In phase II circular structures continued to be built but these were
somewhat different from those in phase IA. These were now usually made of mud and stone
and much less timber was used in their construction. Most of the structures were
about 4 metres in diameter but some were as small as 2.7 metres across. Their floors were usually made of slabs of limestone set in mud and sometimes levelled with gravel.
The walls similarly were composed of stones set in mud
although a few were made of mud alone, presumably with some
support of reeds or wood. Querns and grinding stones were frequently
incorporated in the floors and walls. Although little more than the floors of
these structures survived, their size and frequency suggest that they were
dwelling huts. Outside these buildings were circular fire-pits about 80 centimetres in
diameter lined with clay. They were full of ash, charcoal and burned pebbles.
These may have been roasting pits for meat or parching seeds. After they went
out of use they were frequently filled up with domestic debris.

The chipped stone industry of this phase was siepificantly different from phase I but the tools were still small. Microliths were still very common but these consisted
almost entirely of microborers as lunates and other geometric Microliths were
no longer used. Of the larger tools drills were also numerous but end-scrapers,
burins and sickle blades were still uncommon. Arrowheads were now much more
abundant. Many of these were like Khiamian points but there was much variety
in the arrangement of the notches. A few now had a stem. Obsidian was found in small quantities for the first time in this phase.

The inventory of other finds was a little more abundant and varied in this phase
than earlier. Bone tools such as borers and needles were particularly numerous
and a group of these was found on the floor of Structure I. Cauvin has also found
elaborate combs and sputulae with serrated ends.

Heavy stone tools were another innovation in these
layers though querns, grinders, pestles and mortars are known from the
Mesolithic levels at Abu Hureyra. The querns were oval or rectangular in
shape and hollowed out in the centre. Spherical stones
appear to have been used as grinders with the querns. Pestles and mortars were
also quite common. One or two anthropomorphic stone figurines were also found in
these levels.

The plans of the buildings changed markedly in phase III. Some
were still circular but others were now rectilinear and composed of several
rooms. The circular structures were larger than before, 10 metres in diameter in one
instance and one at least had several compartments within
it. The walls of these buildings, like the rectilinear ones, were now built with
rows of dressed stones held together with mud. Posts and split logs
were used to strengthen the walls. One wall was decorated with several
rows of painted black chevrons on a white background. The
floors were frequently paved with stones as in phase II. The structures were
filled with much burned clay which retained impressions of the timber and straw
used in the upper part of the walls and roofs. These circular buildings were
found in Cauvin's excavations while van Loon found only rectilinear ones.
His structures were built in the same way as the circular ones. The
chambers in each building were frequently no more than 1.5 metre in width. None of
these chambers had a doorway at floor level so they must have been entered from
porthole doors higher in the walls or from above. Within these chambers were
traces of separate compartments, possibly storage bins, and hearths.

These buildings are complex in arrangement and consequently difficult to interpret, a
difficulty compounded by their poor preservation. The circular structures are
commodious enough to have served as houses and their internal compartments may
have fulfilled a domestic function. Most of the rectilinear buildings as they
survive now seem far too cramped inside for anything more than storage. It is
possible, of course, that the small chambers in these buildings were in fact
basement storage rooms in two-storeyed structures and that domestic activities
were carried out on the first floor. There is a parallel for this arrangement
at Ganj Dareh in Iran. Here rectilinear two-storeyed buildings built in this
same way with walls as thin as those at Mureybat have survived remarkably
intact and Smith has told me that he now believes the
basement rooms may have served as storage chambers for the houses above. There
is a rarked resemblance between the two groups of buildings but it will not
be possible to state with certainty what the function of the Mureybat buildings
was until we know more about their precise contents.

The earliest occurrence of human burials within the settlement at Mureybat was in phase III. The inhabitants of the settlement in earlier phases may have buried their dead
within the settlement but outside the area of excavation. Nevertheless the
absence of burials in the Mesolithic deposit at Abu Hureyra strengthens the
impression one has that in northern Syria bodies were disposed of away from the
settlement in earlier periods in contrast with the Natufian in Palestine. When
burial within the settlement was introduced in phase III at Mureybat it had many
similarities with the custom at Jericho in the PPNA. Skulls were detached and
buried in groups separated from the corpses to which they belonged.
In another instance a skull and several long bones were buried
together without the rest of the skeleton - this was a form
of secondary burial that was a regular practice in a later context in the
aceramic Neolithic at Abu Hureyra.

The flint industry was modified still
further in phase III though it was still in the same tradition as that of phases
I and II. Apart from a few microborers microliths had almost disappeared. In
their place the larger tools, end-scrapers, side-scrapers and burins increased
substantially in number and even sickle blades were more abundant. Arrowheads
were also wich more common and larger too. Many of
these now had a true tang for hafting as well as side notches although there was
still much variety of shape; Khiamian points, however, had all but disappeared.
A few of these arrowheads were retouched with
squamous flaking for the first time but spare abrupt retouch remained the usual
technique. Obsidian was now arriving on the site in increasing quantity.

Bone tools were still fairly abundant; the most common ones were borers as before,
the remainder being flat spatulae and beads. None of the elaborate combs has
been found in these levels but even in phase II they were a rare find and so
perhaps not typical.

Among other finds were finely made stone dishes and bowls,
one of which had a wavy band carved in relief on the rim.
Querns, grinders and other heavy stone tools were very common. Then there were a
few other pieces of elaborately carved stone, one of which was complete; this
has been interpreted as an anthropomorphic figure but it
would appear to be more like an owl or other bird of prey.

Baked clay was used in a variety of ways for the first time in this phase.
Many of the pieces were shapes of uncertain design but a few were quite carefully
modelled standing female figures with large buttocks and hands
supporting the breasts. Among the more remarkable objects found were five small
baked clay vessels. These were little cups, bowls and dishes from 4 to 7 centimetres in diameter. Such finds indicate that the inhabitants were now accustomed to making a variety of objects in baked clay but that the substance was not yet employed for utilitarian objects in everyday use.

More C-14 determinations have been obtained from Mureybat than any other Neolithic 1
site in the Levant but since the most recent dates conflict with those obtained
some years ago the procise chronology of each phase is by no means certain. I
discussed some of these determinations in Chapter 2 and suggested that the
transition from phase IA to IB may have taken place about 8500 BC. The
duration of phase IB can only be guessed at for the moment since the single
determination from this phase, Lv-607, cannot be reconciled with dates obtained
for phase IA. My estimate would be that it lasted perhaps 200 years and that
phase II thus began about 8300 BC. Phase II is no better dated
than phase I since two of the Louvain determinations for this phase, 8640 +/- 70
BC Lv-605 and 8510 +/- 200 BC Lv-606, are several centuries earlier than the
three obtained by the Philadelphia laboratory, 8265 +/- 117 BC P-1217,
8142 +/- 118 BC P-1216 and 8056 +/- 96 BC P-1215. One other Louvain determination
for this phase should be mentioned, 7780 +/- 140 BC Lv-6o4, the sample for
which came from near the surface and is believed to have been contaminated by
more recent humic matter. The Philadelphia dates
agree better with the more recent series of Monaco determinations for phases I
and III and so may give a more reliable indication of the duration of phase II.
From them I would estimate that phase II was concluded about 8000 BC or
possibly a little before.

Phase III is dated by three Philadelphia determinations from the first series of
excavations and eight from the Monaco laboratory which have not yet been fully
published. These two series are reasonably consistent so that the chronology of
this phase appears for the moment to be better established than that of phases I
and II. The Philadelphia determinations are: 8018 +/- 115 BC
P-1220 (levels X-XI), 7542 ± 122 BC P-1224 (level XVI) and 7954 +/- 114 BC
P-1222 (levels XVI-XVII). The earliest of the
Monaco dates is 8000 +/- 150 BC Mc-734 and the latest 7570 +/- 150 BC Mc-612
while the others fall in between. Phase III thus appears to have lasted
from about 8000 to 7500 BC.

Circular mud buildings were constructed in phase IB for the first time
so commencing a tradition that lasted a thousand
years at Mureybat. The earliest modifications to the Mesolithic tool kit also
occurred in phase IB with the introduction of notched points and flaked
adzes. This major building innovation and slight but significant development in
the flint industry were the first stage of a gradual but ultimately thorough
cultural change. As this change began in IB it seems reasonable to take this
phase as the transition betveen Mesolithic and Neolithic. The choice is somewhat
arbitrary, however, not least because in the flint industry lunates still
predominated and microliths as a group did not disappear until phase III.

The development of the flint industry illustrates well how slow but far reaching
this cultural change was. First there was the change in the microlithic
component dominated by lunates at the beginning and then by microborers. This
would seem to indicate that some major change in activities within the
settlement was taking place although the flint technology had not altered much
at this stage. Then the microliths were phased out and the tools became much
larger. At the same time there was a change in the core technique as double-ended
cores were now used to produce blades. Some were even the keeled
("naviforme") cores more usually associated with 7th millennium and later
industries but a few of these may in fact have belonged with the phase III
assemblage rather than have been intrusive from phase IV. Changes in the
typology of the flint tools accompanied these technological developments. The
arrowheads are the best example of this: they were introduced in small
quantities in phase IB but eventually formed as much as 25% of the retouched
tools in certain levels in phase III. Their typology also
changed markedly throughout this long period.

These changes in the Mureybat flint industry were the result of a local gradual
developmant and throughout there was an uninterrupted continuity of culture.
Mureybat is the only site known in the Levant at present where a microlithic
flint industry was slowly modified until it became a blade-based industry typical
of the developed Neolithic and where no break in the complete
sequence is suspected. Such a gradual development of the flint industry
indicates that the population remained the same, that the Neolithic inhabitants
were the descendants of their Mesolithic predecessors. The increasing richness
and variety of the remainder of the artifact inventory through the phases also
suggests that the inhabitants were becoming more sedentary